What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4603949?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4603949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4603949?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4603949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9236989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4603949?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4603949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4603949?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4603949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9236989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 728 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 4603949 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pere represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

If this application is unsuccessful, the landlord seeks an order that should the number of occupants in the tenancy exceed the number allowed the tenancy will terminate.

Home in Place (New Zeeland) Limited provider of social housing. The tenancy commenced on 2 December 2022, allowing accommodation for 3 people only, the tenant and her 2 children.

The landlord claimed that there had been 3 instances of antisocial behaviour associated with the tenancy about which notices had been served.

On 26 April a complaint was received that a male had scaled the outside of the building, landing firstly on the balcony of another tenant where her family were inside eating, causing them much distress. He then continued to climb to the next balcony which was the balcony of the tenants’ premises and was seen entering into the apartment.

On 27 April a complaint was received that the same male had entered through the unlocked door of the apartment of the tenant on whose balcony he had landed as above, and then walked out again and then was seen entering the tenant’s premises. This again caused distress to the tenant and her family. The landlord said she was unsure why this would have happened and it could be that the male concerned walked into the unit unintentionally not realising he was on the wrong floor.

On 20 May the landlord received complaints regarding 3 occasions of prank door knocking of a unit in the complex. The CCTV footage showed 3 boys knocking on the door and running away. This caused anxiety and stress for the occupant.

The landlord stated that there have bene no other instances since these events.

The tenant responded that the male on the first occasions was the friend of a cousin who was staying with her. She acknowledges this must have been upsetting for the tenant concerned but said that her cousin is now longer staying with her and his friends don’t visit.

She was unaware of the third occasion until she was advised of it by way of the notice. She again acknowledged this must have been upsetting for the tenant who received the door knocking and that everyone should be able to live quietly without being disturbed.

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.

The landlord has met the requirements, serving approiate notices.

The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.

I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

I find that the instances outlined above, while causing some distress to the recipients involved do not meet the threshold to establish the tenancy should be terminated for antisocial behaviour.

I have also been influenced by the fact there have been no further reported incidents and that the cousin, whose friend was involved in the first to incidents is no longer living with her.

I dismiss the application to terminate the tenancy on the basis of antisocial behaviour. Exceeding the allowed number of occupants

The landlord has applied for an order that if the allowed number of occupants is exceeded in the future then they may terminate the tenancy.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by allowing the additional occupants to live at the premises in excess of that allowed by the tenancy agreement.

The landlord said they had received a report that there were additional unauthorized occupants staying at the tenant’s premises in breach of the agreement and her benefit entitlements.

These visitors had also been using carparks, allocated to resident tenants.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on 8 May requiring this breach to be remedied.

The tenant confirmed that there had been additional people staying at the unit for a short while, but they had now gone. The landlord confirmed that there have been no further reports of additional occupants or the use of car parks by non- residents associated with the tenant.

In essence the tenant has remedied the breach, and there is no basis to terminate the tenancy, or to grant a conditional termination order.

This part of the application is also dismissed.

Reasons